I recently played about a dozen games on this map after getting over the initial mess that was created with the adjustments.

What i found was that the luggers weren't used in any of the games that i played in.The 10 neutrals on them was too high for anyone to conquer and everyone simply conquered across the map.

These were supposed to be an integral part of the gameplay and act like airports that could attack each other, especially for the larger games. I understand there is going to be no happy medium in some of these games to cater for every player combination, but i now feel that the 10 neutrals is way too high, and i would like open discussion on how others feel about this.

My recommendation would be to drop them back to 6 neutrals so they can still be used.

right now i think this is my favorite map to play.. i play on it a lot.. and personally i like the lugers how they are.. i like that the person has to go across the map to find someone.. the games will be too short and easy if we reduce any of the numbers on it.. so personally i think they should stay at ten or be less of a bonus

Sorry cairns, qwert is right. Discussion for changes should be in the map development thread you know that. If you want we can get a shadow topic set up to bring people into the thread from the main foundry like we did with das scholb.

Sorry cairns, qwert is right. Discussion for changes should be in the map development thread you know that. If you want we can get a shadow topic set up to bring people into the thread from the main foundry like we did with das scholb.

[merged]

Qwert may be right Gimil, but i am really pissed that you merged this thread in all your efforts to be oh so correct...you managed to lose the poll that was running in the Foundry Discussion thread and now we have to start all over again...and not even an apology for losing it. Unforgivable!

I recently played about a dozen games on this map after getting over the initial mess that was created with the adjustments.

What i found was that the luggers weren't used in any of the games that i played in.The 10 neutrals on them was too high for anyone to conquer and everyone simply conquered across the map.

These were supposed to be an integral part of the gameplay and act like airports that could attack each other, especially for the larger games. I understand there is going to be no happy medium in some of these games to cater for every player combination, but i now feel that the 10 neutrals is way too high, and i would like open discussion on how others feel about this.

My recommendation would be to drop them back to 6 neutrals so they can still be used.

What do others feel?

Natewolfman wrote:I agree completely, since the change i never have seen a need to use the luggers, and before i used them every time

LB Ninja wrote:right now i think this is my favorite map to play.. i play on it a lot.. and personally i like the lugers how they are.. i like that the person has to go across the map to find someone.. the games will be too short and easy if we reduce any of the numbers on it.. so personally i think they should stay at ten or be less of a bonus

neanderpaul14 wrote:I completely agree I've played a number of games on this map and have never tried for the luggers due to the 10 armies present on each

Sorry peoples, but the poll has to be re-done.If you could vote again please, if you feel like it.

I have voted...all I ask is that if there is a change, it be done in an orderly manner and with advance notice to the community - especially as this is no longer a "beta" map. This is my home map for an ongoing tournament and it would suck to have a change in the middle of an important game(s)

Lincecum wrote:I have voted...all I ask is that if there is a change, it be done in an orderly manner and with advance notice to the community - especially as this is no longer a "beta" map. This is my home map for an ongoing tournament and it would suck to have a change in the middle of an important game(s)

Joodoo wrote:while searching one of the games played on this map, I found out that you could get negative bonuses for some territories...why is that the case? does it have anything to do with the fresh water?

That may have been possible with the old negative lugger bonus, but all the bonuses are now positive numbers so i don't think this applies any longer.

SirSebstar wrote:did you ever get a reply to this question? why is the water so important for survival?

The water is required for survival because if at sea you can't drink salt water...it makes you sick. On These islands the only water available on some of the islands is rain water which is doesn't fall too often.

I think it's time to reduce the number of neutrals on the luggers from 10 to 7 or maybe 8. I'd prefer 7. The problem is that the luggers are never a factor in trips or quads games. I used to play a lot of singles and occasionally I'd take a lugger in them, but in general I think they were over-nerfed when you changed them from 5 to 10. Just a suggestion . . . I'd be interested to hear what others think.

I absolutely agree. It's been one of my favorite maps, and I actually do pretty well on it, but I may have taken a lugger once in all the games I have played. Seven does seem like a good number to consider.

Yes Erland, i am still around.Before we change any neutral amounts, you're going to have to have many more than two people post in this thread for the change. Two people is nowhere near enough to support this sort of change.Regards

Hey, I just noticed a poll on the previous page of the thread where you yourself said you thought the luggers should be lowered to 7 and a lot of people seemed to agree! What ever became of that?? . . . Is it too late for me to cast my vote? heh heh

Erland wrote:Hey, I just noticed a poll on the previous page of the thread where you yourself said you thought the luggers should be lowered to 7 and a lot of people seemed to agree! What ever became of that?? . . . Is it too late for me to cast my vote? heh heh

Erland

Erland, yes there was a poll, but because it was over 2 years ago, i have forgotten the results, and my calling for voting, seems that not many bothered. Seeing you are the first in over 2 years to call for change, it's not that i am unwilling to change it, but you must present as stated more people calling for this change to occur, and i mean many more posts in this thread.

Lowering the Luggers to 7 is a good idea. I play Galapagos on a regular basis in trips or quads. We rarely if ever use the Luggers. The Luggers do seem to have more of an impact on dubs or standard than in trips and quads.

7 seems reasonable and probably an easy change. As it is now, I never use luggers, not even in doubles; I tried them in some early games and quickly concluded, "totally not worth it!"

About the only time I could imagine luggers come into play is for assassin or terminator, where luggers give someone the chance to shoot across the board to a specific targeted opponent without need to assault non-targeted opponents. Someone who plays those types of games on this map may suggest that even then, luggers are rarely needed (would depend on the drop.)

cairnswk, I love everything else about this map, but I really did wonder if you'd put luggers at 10 neutrals as a ploy to lure noobs into trying for them

As it stands, Galapagos just does NOT have the balance of strategic options that your other maps have, and that's a shame; because something I love about your other maps is that none of them have, "one ploy only, sink or swim based on dice," game play. Galapagos kind of does

Another option, but much crazier, to make luggers more viable at 10 is to put at least double the regions between other bonuses and reefs (which would also double the regions between reefs outside of luggers, thus making luggers a more viable reach option).

Between the two, I'd suggest lowering the luggers.

If I recall, the option suggested before was to lower luggers to 5, I think that's a little too low. I think at the time I glanced at the thread but hadn't tried Galapagos so didn't vote; by the time I could vote, having tried the game a few times, the vote was over. 7 seems a good number.